The Politics of Teacher Quality

Abstract

The NCLB requirement for qualified teachers has fueled the fires of the already-politicized debate on preparation. The authors present the research from both sides of the debate, in the hope that educators will be able to see beyond the political agendas and make their own informed decisions about the data. A RECENT bipartisan national poll finds that 42% of respondents felt it was important for teachers to have to design learning experiences that inspire/interest children, while only 19% thought it was important for teachers to have thorough understanding of their subject. Similarly, 67% of those who were sampled said that the proper skills to make information interesting and understandable is a greater difficulty than developing adequate knowledge about subject matter.1 Overwhelmingly, Americans believe that knowing how to teach is at least as important as knowing what to teach. High-quality teaching - knowing the material and how to convey it - makes the difference in student achievement. Research supports this view. Some and education officials, however, seem to be saying just the opposite. U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige said in February 2002 that certification does not ensure quality and that highly qualified teachers may not be required to be certified.2 He added that the present certification system reflects both low standards and high barriers to professional entry. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law's definition of a highly qualified teacher reflects this view. As NCLB brings high-stakes testing and its consequences to all 50 states, everyone wants the best-qualified and most effective teachers. However, the new federal requirements seem to contradict both popular belief and the experiences of educators, which affirm that effective teaching practices - rather than content knowledge alone - increase student achievement. Practitioners worry that, while NCLB widens the potential pool of teaching candidates, many of them will not know how to work effectively with students. Many will not know how to package and deliver their subjects in ways that increase student learning. Instead of expecting new teachers to be classroom ready - that is, equipped with at least the basic teaching skills - NCLB permits content experts who lack teaching knowledge or experience to take over classrooms in the nation's middle and high schools. Once these content experts are on the job, NCLB expects principals and master teachers to educate them using proven, scientifically based professional development strategies that will boost student learning. With the federal government saying one thing and the public at large and practitioners believing another, educators are understandably uncertain about how this new definition of highly qualified teacher will affect teaching and learning. Where Educators and Politicians Agree We use the term politicians to refer to knowledgeable thinkers, writers, and political appointees who have an agenda about what makes a qualified and who selectively exclude research-referenced views that oppose their agenda. These have had a powerful influence on the current education legislation and on the NCLB guidelines and regulations. Jeff Archer has noted that there is little actual disagreement about what research on quality says, but the experts from the two camps strongly disagree about how to interpret it and about how policy makers should respond.3 Consensus does exist about how effective teachers affect student achievement. The effects on student achievement of working for consecutive years with effective or ineffective teachers are known, and we will discuss them only briefly here.4 The schools students attend and what their teachers know and do are more important influences on student achievement than family characteristics and ethnicity. …